Parental alienation involves the systematic brainwashing, poisoning and manipulation of children with the sole purpose of destroying a loving and warm relationship they once shared with a parent. My story involves this form of child abuse & exploring the bias favouring a mother in the social ecosystem around Family Law.

I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Behold below a "believer" in the Feminist mythology of oppression
that hasn't existed in the western democracies for generations. He is a
fully indoctrinasted eunuch who now touts the plight of women in
countries, mostly governed or dominated by sexist religious practices.
You never saw the stridency because you were already a sycophant. Did
you ever try to disagree? Not likely with that degree of affirmation
you were a "bad boy" for being part of the evil patriarchy.

What
the new feminist talking points state is these international
situations keep the fires burning for the Sisterhood at home even though
we Sisters outshine males on nearly every social indicator in Canada.
We must have the international state of affairs as constant reminders
(and indeed to keep the tax dollars flowing) that we are still victims.

I
note you avoid the DV numbers on the home front which are pretty much
equal yet studies show females are more likely to initiate physical
abuse against their male partner and Lesbians have a much higher rate.
Might I remind you they are both female. Why do females initiate at a
greater rate than men. Simply because of people like you telling them
they can from an early age onward. They will reduce their injury rate
by not initiating.

Please do not try to equate the
situation in western democracies with countries ruled by theocrats
pretending to be democrats in a largely illiterate Islamiscist
fundamentalist region.

If feminists were so interested
in helping these people why don't you recruit them in your missionary
work and get them on the ground working with the Afghan women and
government officials. I suggest they would not last a week and would
be on the way home very soon or if they persisted in their stridency to
impose western values on illiterate peasants would probably end up in
jail or worse.

You are beating a dead horse as many
other missionaries have done in the past. How far has Africa progressed
after more than a century of missionary work? Not overly far. Your
solutions are not the answer in the 3rd world and will not see success.

You
are obviously a fully indoctrinated feminist or pro-feminist
spokesperson, however. Hopefully you don't have a son currently enrolled
in K12 whose odds of getting into University are decreasing and if
you ever hope to be a grandfather pray your son doesn't get divorced as
his ex wife will get physical custody (90% chance unless she is a
proven drug addict) and may act as a gatekeeper over access. You may
never see your grandchild and because of people like you this will
continue to be the status quo.

You show all the signs
of a highly feminized male who may not know what is like to be
masculine. Its a pity.
If you truly believe in equality push for
equal shared parenting for fit partners after marriage. That is the
real test of egalitarians. Eighty percent of Canadians think it should
be the case. Do you?

Another poster who is also a
feminist retorts:

@nichD The best way to insult a
man supporting women studies is to try and slag him as being feminine.

and I respond:
What else would he be dear Nich? He
certainly doesn't live in the real world where boys are feminized from
age 4 onward by a very feminine education system. Its a 4-1
female-male ratio in the 20-30 teacher cohort in Ontario. Men do not
want to teach because they are demonised as abusers - just the way
feminists want it.

I study feminism and that includes
males who have a need to think they belong in a woman's studies program
to begin with. Those who do are already feminised. No normal masculine
man would give it a second thought.
Other men, feminised from an
early point in their life, or had a bad experience with their dad, or
who might well be Gay, Trans or Bi do not have normal masculinity
traits. They may even be ashamed of it through the brainwashing
received in K12 and in the media.

A man does not have
to give up his masculnity and declare himself a feminist to understand
gender equality. Those that do are to be pitied for they do not know
what real masculinity is all about. The first responders who give up
their lives to save others are predominately male. Who do you want to
save you from a collapsed building? The burly, in shape, male walking
through flames, fumes, and falling debris, ready to give up his life
just for you, no matter what your gender or a whiny feminine studies
financial consultant who has some kind of vicarious association with
helping girls in Asia through membership in a group.

Hell
he is a man - he might be a perv or so the feminists might have you
believe?

Save me your pious rants. Study what is
happening to your gender right under your nose at the working man level
in western democracies not south Asian or middle east Islamist
countries.

The latter is the new feminist talking point
but is full of hypocrisy.

Bowerman returns to the
thread with an early 70's view of the original equality feminism.

Feb 22 2010
8:55 PM

@Bowerman: Again though, this is not a
counterargument to feminism -- which fundamentally advocates equality
of opportunity -
____________________________
You really
are out of touch with 3rd wave feminism and the culture of
victimization these creatures pronounce.
It is not about equality
and hasn't been since the late 80's. its about entitlements.

After
reading that drivel I won't waste my time on you. You are a true
"believer" not unlike those who are quite religious. With feminists
its a zero sum game.

Ask why they won't support men
getting equal treatment in DV or shared and equal parenting for fit
parents after divorce/separation?

Try and get in touch
with the real feminism of 2010 not the old fashioned equalist version
whose silent voice has been overshadowed by the cacophony and whining
of the victim class of feminism. Look no further than Status of Women
Canada to get you started.

and Bowerman retorts -
"None of these arguments is incompatible with a feminist perspective."

and
I respond to this inane drivel:

It is nothing more
than baffle gab. He has no notion of the reality in today's feminist
hierarchy. We should send him to a class run by Christina Hoff
Sommers, Erin Pizzey, Phylis Schafly and Ann Cools all feminists but
shunned by the Victim Tribe of Feminism which currently predominates
the discourse. God knows when he took his woman studies course but I
sure wouldn't buy a financial product from him given his clear lack of
knowledge and insight on the state of masculinity.

Note
particularly he says none of these are incompatible with feminism.
Well as we full well know not only is he wrong but further what is is
prepared to do about it to help his gender? Why nothing of course
because he is a feminist and has his opinion. MJM

I was trapped —
surrounded by feminists. Ordinarily, being the lone man in a room full
of women would be a dream come true, but the first day of my women’s
studies class I was distinctly aware that I might be considered an
interloper, a foreign agent — the enemy. I wanted to learn, though, and
was prepared to face hostility if I had to.

Feminist
thought intrigued me. I had learned about feminist economist Marilyn
Waring who suggested what sounded like radical common sense to me.
Waring proposed economics ignored much of the most important activity
in the world — raising children, caring for the sick or elderly, the
enormous energy and time required to maintain a home. She felt it
should be accounted for. I agreed — and wondered what other bright
ideas might be found in the feminist camp.

There were
plenty – and most of them felt like the same radical common sense. That
the lower rates of female participation in a variety of domains — from
business to politics — might represent something other than a lack of
talented or interested women, and be squandering enormous talent. That
sexual and domestic violence disproportionately affect women and need
to be stopped. That equal work deserves equal pay.

Other
ideas struck me as less convincing — I didn’t find the Spice Girls’
advocating Girl Power in lipstick and mini-skirts inconsistent or
troublesome as some did. Fortunately feminism itself was split on such
issues, as were my fellow students. What was described as a homogeneous
philosophy by outside critics was dynamic, fragmented and alive inside
the classroom.

Even more powerful for me though, was
that when that gender analysis was taken to the international stage the
disparity moved from disturbing to appalling. Sexual slavery, female
circumcision, lack of property rights, denial of health care, the
murder of female babies and ritual burning of widows. The lectures
opened my eyes to numerous tragedies which feminists were sounding
alarms about, rigorously analyzing and crafting solutions for.

While
I learned that feminists led the charge on such critical issues around
the world, early on in my women’s studies class most students resisted
the feminist label as though it was a contemporary scarlet letter — a
badge of shame. The incongruence between the laudable accomplishments
of feminism and my classmates’ hesitation to celebrate those
accomplishments highlighted a strange outcome of the cultural clash
over women’s rights.

Feminism won its major battles,
and seems in the process of winning the rest. Voting rights and
equality are enshrined in law, women are swelling the ranks of law and
medicine and outnumbering men in many university programs, and Sex in
the City is reconciling women’s desire for femininity with their career
ambitions. Even motherhood and homemaking are making comebacks with
maternity leave nationally mandated. All of which suggests that
feminism has won the culture war so completely that it may well be the
most successful social movement of the modern era.

Yet
feminists are often still characterized as shrill, strident,
man-haters. It was never shrill or strident to call for voting rights,
equality of opportunity, an end to sexual violence, or the opportunity
for women to pursue a career. It was actually boorish and ignorant to
criticize these advances. The myth of the strident feminist persists
anyway, a bitter echo of opposition from debates feminism long ago
settled and won.

History is normally written by the
winners, but in feminism’s case the sore losers kept the pen. This is
tragic because around the world feminist progress remains critical.
Much work needs to be done to empower women and girls — and to get it
done we need people to know that feminism and women’s rights are
important and interesting areas to study and work in.

And
it is important and interesting work. Feminists fight to protect girls
from violence encountered seeking education in regions where education
is freely given to boys; battle the injustice of sexual slavery;
protect helpless mothers denied property rights in spite of local laws;
and more. All of this work makes our world a safer and more just
place.

The attacks I was prepared for on my first day
of class never came. I was never crucified for the real or imagined
sins of my gender. Instead I learned feminists weren’t the bogeywomen
they were portrayed as — they were resented for being consistently
ahead of their time, but undaunted in continuing their important
contributions to human progress.

National Post

Mike
Bowerman works in financial consulting and supports girls’ education
in Afghanistan through The Canadian International Learning Foundation,
www.canilf.org, and the Central Asia Institute, www.ikat.org

Oh. Well everything is baggy sweaters and herbal
tea, then. Thanks. by JeremyW

Feb 22
2010
3:43 PM

A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated.
Not once does your article mention abortion. Not once does your
article mention the huge bias in the court system against men when it
comes to custody battles.
Are you aware that there are no shelters
for men and their children in Canada whatsoever to escape from violent
female spouses. Your stats that females are disportionately the
victims of domestic violence are outdated. Reported domestic violence,
yes. I'll let you dig up that info yourself though since it is
obvious to me that your research skills could use some honing.
Incidentally, anecdotal evidence proofs nothing.

Not
one did you mention the marginalization of masculanity, in fact the
downright vilification of masculine values, in modern media
particularly in the penoply of so called sitcoms. Even supposedly
"male" shows like Two-and-a-Half-Men serve only to perpetuate the myth
that all men are sex obsessed implusive brutes that need to be
controlled.

This shows up moreso in "educational"
material. I have yet to see a sexual harrassment video where I work
where a female coworker harrasses a male coworker or subordinate
despite the fact that women comprise 68% of my organization's
workforce.

Your article did not mention the glossing
over of natural biological differences between boys and girls whose
denial have led to a disportionate gap in scholastic performance
between females and males.
Which brings me to my main question.
When they catrasted you on your first day of class did you go for the
modern chemical method or did you "take it like a man" and go the good
old fashion rusty plier route? by Sassylassie

Feb 22
2010
3:54 PM

So they actually teach women about sexual and
genital mutilation, really so why haven't I heard from the "Official
Feminists' publicly? Where is their public outcry on female sexual
mutilation, gendercide via abortions, the implimentation of Sharia Law
in the West? Why haven't the so called professional feminists spoken
out on the above issue? Feminists work to protect girls from violence,
really well I've been waiting for decades for those so called
feminists to condone the following cultural practice: www.alarabiya.net/.../101004.html

Snippet:
What 10-year-old Aisha did not know was that after the wedding party
she would have to leave school, move to a village far from her parents'
home, cook and clean all day, and have sex with her older husband.

"He
took out a special sheet and laid me down on it," Aisha told IRIN,
wringing her small plump hands. "After it, I started bleeding. It was
so painful that I was crying and shouting, and since then I have seen
him as death."

End snippet:-----------

If
those so called feminist globally united perhaps we could stop the
systematic rape of children in Muslim Countries but I realise they are
busy protecting women from that mythical glass ceiling. by Denis Pakkala

Feb 22
2010
3:56 PM

Don’t boys also need education and health care in
the third world? Is it okay that boys are being bred to be soldiers,
because they have no other options available to them?

“That
the lower rates of female participation in a variety of domains — from
business to politics — might represent something other than a lack of
talented or interested women”

What about in Canada
only? Where is the evidence of lack of opportunity for women to
support discrimination in government funding against men?

In
Canada, there are far more unemployed men than women. There are more
homeless men than women. There are also fewer men graduating from
post-secondary education. Why is it necessary to ignore the very real
plight of Canadian men?

In family law…where is the
evidence to support discrimination against fathers?…relegating them to
being occasional visitors and ATMs. There is certainly good evidence
to suggest that it is bad social policy and not in the best interests
of children.

In domestic violence…where is the evidence
to support discrimination against men?…gender profiling completely
ignores violent women and male victims. There is certainly good
evidence to suggest that it is bad social policy and discriminatory.
How is it in the best interests of children for society to ignore
their mothers violent behavior towards their father?

Mike
Bowerman should read Christina Hoff Sommers and then see what kind of a
reaction that he gets from his feminist allies. What he has
experienced in feminist studies was brain washing. His acceptance of
their one-sided biased ideology makes him acceptable to the feminists.

Your classmates' reluctance to self describe as
feminists should have been a clue, Sherlock.
Jeremy: Don't make
the castrato cry. by seekingtruth

Feb 22
2010
4:03 PM

girly men to the rescue. by Rhino Party Whip

Feb
22 2010
4:22 PM

57% of Afghan males can't read. by FreedomRawks

Feb 22
2010
4:24 PM

"Radical common sense" is an oxymoron. by MikeMurphy

Feb 22
2010
4:28 PM

Behold a "believer" in the Feminist mythology of
oppression that hasn't existed in the western democracies for
generations. He is a fully indoctrinasted eunuch who now touts the
plight of women in countries, mostly governed or dominated by sexist
religious practices. You never saw the stridency because you were
already a sycophant. Did you ever try to disagree? Not likely with
that degree of affirmation you were a "bad boy" for being part of the
evil patriarchy.
What the new feminist talking points state is
these international situations keep the fires burning for the
Sisterhood at home even though we Sisters outshine males on nearly
every social indicator in Canada. We must have the international state
of affairs as constant reminders (and indeed to keep the tax dollars
flowing) that we are still victims.
I note you avoid the DV
numbers on the home front which are pretty much equal yet studies show
females are more likely to initiate physical abuse against their male
partner and Lesbians have a much higher rate. Might I remind you they
are both female. Why do females initiate at a greater rate than men.
Simply because of people like you telling them they can from an early
age onward. They will reduce their injury rate by not initiating.

Please
do not try to equate the situation in western democracies with
countries ruled by theocrats pretending to be democrats in a largely
illiterate Islamiscist fundamentalist region.

If
feminists were so interested in helping these people why don't you
recruit them in your missionary work and get them on the ground working
with the Afghan women and government officials. I suggest they would
not last a week and would be on the way home very soon or if they
persisted in their stridency to impose western values on illiterate
peasants would probably end up in jail or worse.

You
are beating a dead horse as many other missionaries have done in the
past. How far has Africa progressed after more than a century of
missionary work? Not overly far. Your solutions are not the answer in
the 3rd world and will not see success.

You are
obviously a fully indoctrinated feminist or pro-feminist spokesperson,
however. Hopefully you don't have a son currently enrolled in K12
whose odds of getting into University are decreasing and if you ever
hope to be a grandfather pray your son doesn't get divorced as his ex
wife will get physical custody (90% chance unless she is a proven drug
addict) and may act as a gatekeeper over access. You may never see
your grandchild and because of people like you this will continue to be
the status quo.

You show all the signs of a highly
feminized male who may not know what is like to be masculine. Its a
pity.
If you truly believe in equality push for equal shared
parenting for fit partners after marriage. That is the real test of
egalitarians. Eighty percent of Canadians think it should be the case.
Do you?

Feb 22 2010
4:28 PM

"girly men to the rescue."
Indeed. It seems
every guy posting on this thread thus far is terrified of uppity women
and their plan to make all men emasculated, illiterate peons to their
causes.
It's rather drôle. by Rhino Party Whip

Feb
22 2010
4:39 PM

Nich: Don't you have a prorogation rally to
organize? Fight the Man!
Excuse us for for not taking manly
lessons from a guy who uses French bon mots and squats to pee. by arbyburns

Feb 22
2010
4:48 PM

dispensing with the ad homenins (*fellows*), and on
a critique of what is actually stated here -

*I had
learned about feminist economist Marilyn Waring who ... proposed
economics ignored much of the most important activity in the world —
raising children, caring for the sick or elderly, the enormous energy
and time required to maintain a home. She felt it should be accounted
for.*

this is all well and good - as far as it goes.
I've read about this before, and thought then what I do now: let's
account for *all* the work done in the world, regardless if it is
raising children, keeping care of the elderly, etc., or general
maintenance on the home, disproportionate engagement in dirty and
dangerous work, much higher rates of injury and death at work
(coincidentally, these burdens fall largely on men).

*That
sexual and domestic violence disproportionately affect women and need
to be stopped. That equal work deserves equal pay.*

Please
educate yourself. In regard to domestic violence, women have been
shown now to initiate partner violence as much as men; in regard to
sexual violence, it appears at least that boys are much more likely to
fall victim to sexual abuse; that parental abuse is carried out largely
by mothers, not fathers...

As for `equal work for
equal value', this is just a euphemism for enforced payouts to those in
female dominated professions, as these professionals are judged by the
market as less valuable than male-dominated professions and vocations.

*Other
ideas struck me as less convincing — I didn’t find the Spice Girls’
advocating Girl Power in lipstick and mini-skirts inconsistent or
troublesome as some did.*

Wow. For all the bad ideas
that feminism has come up with, you should pick an important one...
*Even
more powerful for me though, was that when that gender analysis was
taken to the international stage the disparity moved from disturbing to
appalling.*

What is most appalling about all of this
is that most Western feminists don't give a tooth about their truly
oppressed sisters in the Third World.

Feminists have
written in favour of female genital mutilation.

Feminists
have condemend those who would criticize the practice of `sate' in
India or family-honour killings in the Middle East and elsewhere, as
`imperialist hegemons.'

Mainstream feminist
organizations have either offered apologia or outright support to
Islamic-fascist terror organization and movements - such as Hamas -
which would force women back into the home, never mind paying them 66%
or whatever of what men make.

Mainstream feminists have
also urged the evacuation from the fight against the Taliban, although
of course women of Afghanistan don't want troops to leave for fear
that this particular pack of Islamic-fascists will take power again...

*While
I learned that feminists led the charge on such critical issues around
the world, early on in my women’s studies class most students resisted
the feminist label as though it was a contemporary scarlet letter — a
badge of shame.*

If it's a badge of shame, it is well
deserved by the ideas and actions of feminists themselves.
*All
of which suggests that feminism has won the culture war so completely
that it may well be the most successful social movement of the modern
era.*

Which, I guess, begs the question: why do
feminists themselves keep insuating that nothing has changed, that
Canada is just as sexist as any `third world' society, that women face
rape every where they look, etc etc
*Yet feminists are often
still characterized as shrill, strident, man-haters.*

(see
above, `feminists won the culture war' and yet still act like its
1900)
*History is normally written by the winners, but in
feminism’s case the sore losers kept the pen.*
oh god, not this
crap again: `history is written by the winners.'

No, it
isn't.
Losers write their own history all the time.
Losers
wrote the history of the Sparta-Athens war (the winners wrote no
history)
Losers wrote histories of the Hellenic-Persian wars.
Losers
wrote histories of World War I, II and the Cold War.
Losers write
history all the time.
I guess cliche is all that you could hope
to learn in `women's studies.' by MikeMurphy

Feb 22
2010
4:53 PM

NichD Feb 22 2010 4:28 PM
Indeed. It seems
every guy posting on this thread thus far is terrified of uppity women
and their plan to make all men emasculated, illiterate peons to their
causes.
__________________________
And you are the
liberated, eviscerated and sycophantic metrosexual I suppose.

Please
note not all posters are male. The first observance of informed debate
is to know who you are debating, why you are debating, have some
knowledge of the issues and be able to not only read but have some
ability to comprehend.

You obviously don't have a son
in school or if you do you don't have a clue what he contends with. by NichD

Feb 22
2010
5:51 PM

Rhino Party Whip;
"A coward is much more
exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit."
Thomas Jefferson
MikeMurphy
- I was referring to the posters that we male (ergo not the female
posters). I read somewhere male adult illiteracy is on the rise. Did
you read much on that. by Denis Pakkala

Feb 22
2010
6:08 PM

NichD,
Do you have anything intelligent to add
or are you just here for the insults?
Yes, men are also
concerned about social justice and discrimination. by NichD

Feb 22
2010
6:18 PM

Denis - My point is that most of the posters here
are just reactionary whiners with talking points for arguments.

The
slightest challenge to their held 'position' is ad hominen and other
completely irrelevant comments.
The favourite insult directed
towards the author are feminine in nature. The best way to insult a man
supporting women studies is to try and slag him as being feminine.
Such idiocy can only write itself since such insults support the
authors thesis indirectly.

Many men are concerned with
social justice and discrimination, but not in the same way you are. by Skeptikal 1

Feb 22
2010
6:29 PM

What strikes me here is, once again, the old us vs.
them mentality that has fed the feminist ideology for decades. And
it's the same on the male side from the comments. Let's stop with the
whole victim ideology, let's recognize we're succesful or failures
because of our own individual choices, and let's stop blaming everyone
else. by BlueScot

Feb 22
2010
6:36 PM

Well, I guess that's one man's view.

This
man's view is somewhat different.

Currently separated,
get the kids 4 times a week, pay through the nose & get
accused of not doing enough. I do the parent/teacher interviews, help
with homework and have the job that allows for leaving to pick up sick
kids.

Forced to sign an agreement or she wouldn't sign
the dower release for my home.

She takes the kids to
Mexico then says she's not buying any xmas presents on Dec 15th.
Salary
goes up & so does the % (not the amt, the%) for child support.
Constantly
verbally harrassed and she won't be happy till I am living in my car.

Now
I have to consider putting my oldest boy in another school as his
teachers/counselor will not help him adapt to the female style
classroom they push (as described by my son's female psycologist). Can
no longer afford the tutor.

"Gee dad, how come mom buys
us really nice stuff & you only buy us cheap stuff?"
And
why are there not more female MPs, MLAs? Because less of them are
running for office and/or because no one is voting for them.

Substantive
equality, in this instance, is just another female division of the
left.

NichD,
Why don't you respond to some of the
issues that we have raised, rather than joining in the ad hominem
attacks.
It appears that is your only interest and it is a typical
tactic by feminists. Ignore the issues, slander the messenger. by Denis Pakkala

Feb
22 2010
6:53 PM

BlueScot, it's the feminist version of male
slavery. It's a common story in Canada. by OracleMan

Feb 22
2010
8:06 PM

So let me see if I have this straight (pardon the
obscene word):
Being in favor of women's equality with men is
"feminism." Right?

Har har har har har har

Feminism
is a self-constructed ideology of group identity which largely defines
itself in anti-male terms. Feminism replaces conventional English with
a set of self-generated words which provide it with cult narratives,
available only to trained feminists.

The essence of
feminism is that the _superior_ sex, which it calls a "gender," is
female and that females should not have to compete with males in
society on an equal footing.

Feminism posits that female
failure is a male responsibility and accountability is a male
construct.

Feminism posits that genital mutilation in a
dark corner of Africa is none of your business, if you're a man, or
all of your fault if you're a man in Canada.

Feminism
is the guiding light of an effeminized, welfare culture, in which males
are streamed out of jobs and education, and females enjoy privilege at
the expense of male taxpayers, usually their ex-husbands. Under
feminism, all are equal except that the Head Sow is more equal than the
rest. by Michael Bowerman

Feb
22 2010
8:28 PM

@JeremyW: I agree that domestic violence against
men should be taken seriously -- your point is not a counterargument
to feminism.

Similarly, the gap in scholastic
performance between boys and girls is worth considering -- there are
many reforms the education system could benefit from. Again though,
this is not a counterargument to feminism -- which fundamentally
advocates equality of opportunity -- it is an argument for better
education and is compatible with a feminist perspective. by Michael Bowerman

Feb
22 2010
8:32 PM

@ SassyLassie: I share your concern, and note that
your perspective is a feminist one -- that there are unique challenges
women face internationally which urgently need to be addressed.
Systematic rape is just such a challenge, and you'll be glad to know
that feminists are leading the charge on this issue. For more
information, you might be interested in the book Half the Sky: Turning
Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, by Nikolas Kristoff
and Sheryl WuDunn. Best wishes with your efforts to combat this
injustice. by Michael Bowerman

Feb
22 2010
8:41 PM

@ DennisPakala: I agree that there are serious
flaws in family law which amount to discrimination against men and need
to be revised. This is not incompatible with a feminist perspective.

Excellent
link to Christina Hoff -- however, in the essay she describes herself
as a feminist, says feminism has "won its major battles" (as I said),
that these issues are more severe internationally (as I said), and in
general points out that there are diverging views within feminism (also
in my piece). Your link seems to support my experience and
perspective, not refute it. I agree with most of what she says, hope
more people read her work, and wish more people would share her
(self-described) feminist perspective. If you agree with her perhaps
you are more of a feminist than you thought. by MikeMurphy

Feb 22
2010
8:46 PM

@nichD The best way to insult a man supporting
women studies is to try and slag him as being feminine.
______________________________
What
else would he be dear Nich? He certainly doesn't live in the real
world where boys are feminized from age 4 onward by a very feminine
education system. Its a 4-1 female-male ratio in the 20-30 teacher
cohort in Ontario. Men do not want to teach because they are demonised
as abusers - just the way feminists want it.

I
study feminism and that includes males who have a need to think they
belong in a woman's studies program to begin with. Those who do are
already feminised. No normal masculine man would give it a second
thought.
Other men, feminised from an early point in their life,
or had a bad experience with their dad, or who might well be Gay, Trans
or Bi do not have normal masculinity traits. They may even be ashamed
of it through the brainwashing received in K12 and in the media.

A
man does not have to give up his masculnity and declare himself a
feminist to understand gender equality. Those that do are to be pitied
for they do not know what real masculinity is all about. The first
responders who give up their lives to save others are predominately
male. Who do you want to save you from a collapsed building? The burly,
in shape, male walking through flames, fumes, and falling debris, ready
to give up his life just for you, no matter what your gender or a
whiny feminine studies financial consultant who has some kind of
vicarious association with helping girls in Asia through membership in a
group.

Hell he is a man - he might be a perv or so the
feminists might have you believe?

Save me your pious
rants. Study what is happening to your gender right under your nose at
the working man level in western democracies not south Asian or middle
east Islamist countries.
The latter is the new feminist talking
point but is full of hypocrisy. by MikeMurphy

Feb 22
2010
8:55 PM

@Bowerman: Again though, this is not a
counterargument to feminism -- which fundamentally advocates equality
of opportunity -
____________________________
You really are
out of touch with 3rd wave feminism and the culture of victimization
these creatures pronounce.
It is not about equality and hasn't
been since the late 80's. its about entitlements.

After
reading that drivel I won't waste my time on you. You are a true
"believer" not unlike those who are quite religious. With feminists
its a zero sum game.

Ask why they won't support men
getting equal treatment in DV or shared and equal parenting for fit
parents after divorce/separation?

Try and get in touch
with the real feminism of 2010 not the old fashioned equalist version
whose silent voice has been overshadowed by the cacophony and whining
of the victim class of feminism. Look no further than Status of Women
Canada to get you started. by Rhino Party Whip

Feb
22 2010
8:55 PM

Mike: a U-Nich? by Michael Bowerman

Feb
22 2010
9:04 PM

@ MikeMurphy: I agree with your three main points
which seem to be that men also suffer domestic violence, that
conditions internationally for women are far worse than domestically,
and that men are often unfairly treated in family law. None of these
arguments is incompatible with a feminist perspective.

@arbyburns:
Your perspective about counting "all" aspects of work is consistent
with both Waring's position and my own. If you read her book, If Women
Counted: A New Feminist Economics, you might find you share even more
values with her than you realise. This would be consistent with your
avoidance of the ad hominem attacks -- many people don't read feminist
literature due to the word 'feminist,' and consequently misunderstand
its theory and application.

That domestic violence
against men should be taken seriously is compatible with a feminist
perspective.

Your characterisation of 'mainstream
feminism' supporting the Taliban, sate, and genital mutilation is the
exact oppostive of my experience in women's studies -- I first learned
of some of these issues in women's studies -- and the opposite of my
experience since. In fact, in the link in Dennis Palakka's comment to a
Christina Hoff essay you will read that mainstream feminism is
responsible for our awareness of these issues.

In
any case, I'm glad to know that these issues are of concern to you,
and be assured that I share your concern regardless of what terminology
describes it. by Denis Pakkala

Feb 22
2010
9:05 PM

Michael, try having a serious conversation with any
feminist about domestic violence against men…you will learn a few
lessons about “equality of opportunity” and the serious professional
bias among feminist researchers. www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/.../Intimate_Partner.pdf
www.nfvlrc.org
It
is a counter-argument to feminism, when Canada’s social policies and
training of social workers, police and judges are based on bad research
and academic fraud.

Do some research on the Pay-Gap
myth and representation in Parliament! There is already equality of
opportunity, feminists want equality of results.

Of
course, do some reading by Christina Hoff Somers and the Individual
Feminists at ifeminists.org. They think for themselves, rather than
blindly accepting contemporary feminist ideology. by Denis Pakkala

Feb 22
2010
9:07 PM

Rhino, leave him alone
He is attempting to
engage in serious discussion, which is far more than I can say for his
feminist/liberal allies. by arbyburns

Feb 22
2010
9:41 PM

*arbyburns: Your perspective about counting "all"
aspects of work is consistent with both Waring's position and my own.
If you read her book, If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics, you
might find you share even more values with her than you realise.*

Perhaps
this is so.
*That domestic violence against men should be taken
seriously is compatible with a feminist perspective.*
Well,
that's as may be.

I have seen, however, feminists deny
the very existence of female domestic violence at all.
Michelle
Landsburg (sp), a former columnist with the Toronto `Star', over a
series of columns in the 1990s, said just as much. The only `violence'
she said, which women use on men, is when they slap a man's hand,
who's about to take a piece of cake before dinner (really, I'm not
kidding).
This was, admittedly, a long time ago. Perhaps
viewpoints on this have changed.

*Your
characterisation of 'mainstream feminism' supporting the Taliban, sate,
and genital mutilation is the exact oppostive of my experience in
women's studies -- I first learned of some of these issues in women's
studies -- and the opposite of my experience since.*

Yes,
there was a time when feminists believed in universal support rights -
as did the left generally. That time has long, long past.

An
example: the Code Pink organization, an avowedly feminist `anti-war'
group, visited Afghanistan recently and were surprised to discover that
women in that country do not support C.P.'s demand for U.S. troops to
evacuate the country, for fear that the Taliban would force them quite
literally back into their homes.

Of course, feminists
have been critical of the Taliban regime, too.

On
another occasion, this same Code Pink toured the Palestinian area in
Gaza under the patronage of the Hamas movement.

Quite
aside from the terrorist fascism in which that group revolves - yes,
yes, I call them terrorist you call them freedom fighter, but whatever -
there is no question whatsoever that Hamas is a congenitally
anti-feminist organization. by Denis Pakkala

Feb 22
2010
9:56 PM

Michael, further on academic fraud...Dr. Peter
Jaffe at UWO, the feminist research most relied on for discriminatory
social programs and training.

Apart
from IPV directed to a partner, feminist theory also ignores violence
by women directed at children, probably because such violence falls
outside the political view of being a response to an oppressor male.
However, violence and abuse toward children is of central importance to
custody assessors, more so than the varieties of IPV described by
Johnson. In that respect, custody assessors should be aware of the
largest study of child abuse and neglect that, to my knowledge, has
ever been conducted. This is a study of 135, 573 child maltreatment
investigations conducted by Health Canada and Published by the National
Clearing House on

Family Violence (Trocme and al.
2001). The study designates the abuse type as physical abuse, sexual
abuse, neglect, emotional maltreatment and "multiple categories". The
investigations are further divided into substantiated, suspected and
unsubstantiated categories. Substantiation rates do not, in general,
vary by gender of perpetrator and run from 52 to 58%. Biological
mothers (as compared to biological fathers) are the more likely
substantiated perpetrator of physical abuse (47 vs. 42%), neglect (86%
vs. 33%), emotional maltreatment (61% vs. 55%) and multiple categories
(66% vs. 36%). The biological father is the most likely perpetrator of
sexual abuse (15% vs. 5%). For physical abuse the substantiation rate
was 6% higher for fathers, bringing the total perpetration rates to
equality ( Table 4, page 49).

These data, based on a
huge nationally representative sample, tell a very different picture
than that presented by JAFFE et al, Bancroft et al, or Johnson, all of
whom over rely on shelter samples to draw erroneous conclusions about
risk to children. Johnson concludes by saying "assume that all violence
is intimate terrorism (which is "largely male perpetrated and related
to gender attitudes") until proven otherwise". Compare this to the
American Psychological Association Guidelines for forensic evaluation
summarised in Weissman and DeBow (2003). The forensic evaluation must
begin with a "cognitive set and evaluative attitude" of the assessor
that is "neutral, objective and detached" (p. 39). Jaffe et al,
Bancroft et al and Johnson make adherence to this principle impossible.

Dutton,
Corvo 2006, Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology
and science in domestic violence research and practice

Although
some critics have disparaged the instrument of measurement, the
Conflict Tactics scale or CTS (Straus, 1992), in fact this scale is 16
times more sensitive than government “crime victim” surveys (Straus,
1999) such as the National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden
& Thoennes, 1998). These surveys, in turn, tend to filter out
male reports of victimization because of the “set” of the survey
(criminal victimization of women). When this set is altered, more
equivalent rates of violence are reported, as in the Canadian General
Social Survey of 25,876 respondents, equally split by gender. In this
survey (Laroche, 2005) the “crime victim” filter was dropped and the
focus was on “perceptions of crime”. In addition, men were asked about
instrumental controlling behaviors used against them, (Laroche, 2005)
something that had not previously been asked because of the assumptions
of the patriarchal paradigm.

Equivalent rates of
severe abuse were found, 8% of women, and 7% of men reporting
victimization. Use of repeat, severe instrumental violence by a partner
was reported by 2.6% of men and 4.2% of women. Equivalent injuries,
use of medical services and fear of the abuser were also discovered in
cases where the abuser used repeat instrumental abuse. Why is this
small but destructive sub-group not receiving a concentrated
intervention strategy?
...
Stets and Straus (1992a,b)
concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of
violence, they are “at least as likely” to instigate violence. The
results also indicated that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%)
than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus
& Gelles, 1992). This latter result is difficult to explain
from the patriarchal view that women are more afraid of male violence
than the reverse.
...
Simply put, the evidence for
theoretical patriarchy as a “cause” of wife assault is scant and
contradicted by numerous studies: male dominant couples constitute only
9.6% of all couples (Coleman & Straus, 1985); women are at
least as violent as men (Archer, 2000); women are more likely to use
severe violence against nonviolent men than the converse (Stets
& Straus, 1992a,b); powerlessness rather than power seems
related to male violence; there are data contradicting the idea that
men in North America find violence against their wives acceptable
(Dutton, 1994; Simon et al., 2001) and that abusiveness is higher in
lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships (Lie, Schilit,
Bush, Montague, & Reyes, 1991) suggesting that intimacy and
psychological factors regulating intimacy are more important than
sexism (Dutton, 1994). by Denis Pakkala

Feb 22
2010
10:01 PM

Note that Christina Hoff Sommers was slandered and
excommunicated from her feminist groups when she attempted to think for
herself. She joined up with Wendy McElroy to start Ifeminists.org.

...More
on active feminist denial of male victims of domestic violence and
active interefence in research.
Processes Explaining the
Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner
Violence
In this paper, Murray A Strauss lists the different ways
in which feminist activists deliberately distort and conceal evidence
in order to create the false impression that men are more violent to
their partners than women. pubpages.unh.edu/.../V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf by MikeMurphy

Feb 22
2010
10:52 PM

@ Denis:
Don't waste your time with this guy.
He keeps repeating, and there is no doubt he believes it,
"None
of these arguments is incompatible with a feminist perspective."

It
is nothing more than baffle gab. He has no notion of the reality in
today's feminist hierarchy. We should send him to a class run by
Christina Hoff Sommers, Erin Pizzey, Phylis Schafly and Ann Cools all
feminists but shunned by the Victim Tribe of Feminism which currently
predominates the discourse. God knows when he took his woman studies
course but I sure wouldn't buy a financial product from him given his
clear lack of knowledge and insight on the state of masculinity.

Note
particularly he says none of these are incompatible with feminism.
Well as we full well know not only is he wrong but further what is is
prepared to do about it to help his gender? Why nothing of course
because he is a feminist and has his opinion. by Denis Pakkala

Feb 22
2010
11:20 PM

I think that Michael has good and humanist
intentions. He has an opinion, but he is not closed minded to feeling
compassion for his own gender, unlike the typical feminist that is
responsible for all of the negative stereotypes.

Indeed,
if feminism is to change and become equality in practice, it will take
a man to do it! I encourage Michael to do his own research and think
for himself.

Michael may have an epiphany some day. He
may come across an impoverished boy in a third world country and tell
him that he doesn't have to be sold as a sex slave or used for slave
labour or become a soldier.

Michael may come to
recognize that boys also deserve the right to be healthy, live without
violence, get an education and be a father to their children. by OracleMan

Feb 23
2010
1:09 AM

Mike and Denis, it's hard to find substance and
sincerity in what Bowerman has written, including in his pro-forma
"replies" to you.

What I hear is the trained
condescension of a house feminist: "This problem you say you have,
sonny, you only think you have it..."

Ten years ago
they were still saying things like "being defensive, aren't we???"

Ally dismissive to condescending, and there you have it, the feminized
male voice.

From what this gentleman has written, I
see no evidence he actually _knows_ what feminism _is_. Here's a hint,
Bowerman: a travesty of philosophy, social science, and epistemology. by Denis Pakkala

Denis, I peeked at that CBC report. I am
gob-smacked to a month of Sundays.
Musta taken a lawsuit to get
it published. Every fembo lawyer will howl. by Rectificatif

Feb 23
2010
4:12 AM

Oh me oh my, I've just read this article carefully.
Look at this:

"Waring proposed [that] economics
ignored much of the most important activity in the world — raising
children, caring for the sick or elderly, the enormous energy and time
required to maintain a home. She felt it should be accounted for. I
agreed — and wondered what other bright ideas might be found in the
feminist camp."

Dear Mike: What Mizz Waring "proposed"
was an idea floated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mddle of
the 19th century.

Mizz Waring, then, is warmed-over
marxism from 160 years ago.

Come sit by me, an
ex-professor, we'll do some private lessons. I'll show you how
"feminist scholar" is an oxymoron. by economart

Feb 23
2010
4:16 AM

Hello Mr. Bowerman,

You say that
domestic violence perpetrated by women against men and children, that
women suffer internationally more than domestically, and that men are
unfairly treated by our family courts are not 'incompatible' with a
feminist perspective.

You devious little manfem (if you
are even a man): these facts are not even mentioned by feminists
because it counters their belief that women are the victims in the here
and now. They underscore, publicize, exaggerate, and grossly distort
any information that supports their aim. They ignore that which does
not.

Feminists are an incorrigibly
mendacious bunch. One is wise to question anything that comes out of
their mouths. The bizarre science within women's studies finds a cousin
in Man made global warming.

When
confronted, they like you sheepishly fold into a further body of lies;
paying lipservice to any valid point with the proverbial lie, "but we
seek equality."

You are a coward, Bowerman. Hoff
Summers exposed the MANiacal underpinnings and practices of feminism a
long time ago. Most women will have nothing to do with the utopic
Island of Lesbos and Gaia worship.
Gary Marshall by MikeMurphy

Feb 23
2010
4:26 AM

@Denis and the CEEB: I am taking great pains to
refrain from a celebratory little dribble of 20 year old single malt
scotch so I can remain focused on the Canadian Ice Dance champs on in a
few moments.
Most assuredly this is a cause for wondering what
has happened in the CBC censor's office. Surely the Ombudsman is not
having an impact after all the complaints he has received.
I'll
just have a peak at the bottle instead.

Favourite Quotes

“The job of a father is this : to help his children develop, to teach them to express and master their emotions; to avoid physiological distress, to provide a context for their experiences; to help them persevere, reach their goals and take on responsibilities; and to instil the roles of citizen, partner and parent. In short, it is to fill their bellies with bread, their brains with wisdom and their hearts with love and courage.” Camil Bouchard, “On Father’s Ground” 2002.

Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and say, "Why not?" ~ George Bernard Shaw ~ also quoted by Robert F. Kennedy, US Senator and Presidential Candidate assassinated in 1968.

Happiness makes up in height for what it lacks in length. ~ Robert Frost

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi

Search my blogs with a custom keyword search by Google

Eastern Standard Time - North America

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario

Western Australia (DST from last Sunday in Oct. to last Sunday in March)

Perth, Western Australia

Some Gems on relationships

Marriage is a relationship in which one person is always right, and the other is a husband.

The motto of this Father's Rights Activist

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again ... and who, at the worst, if he fails at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt,

Facts on violence in Canada Domestic and Otherwise

Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2009.

Of the nearly 19 million Canadians who had a current or former spouse in 2009, 6.2% or 1.2 million reported they had been victimized physically or sexually by their partner or spouse during the five years prior to the survey. This proportion was stable from 2004 (6.6%), the last time the victimization survey was conducted, and down from 1999 (7.4%).

A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women.

Total 611, men 465, women 146Rate of homicides with firearms has increased 24% since 2002. Handgun use on increase (gangs don't register their weapons)Women victims 24% - lowest proportion everMen Victims 76%Both the rate of females killed (0.87 per 100,000 population), as well as the proportion(24%), were the lowest since 196162 spousal homicides - no change from 2007Lowest rate in 40 years45 women 17 (27.4%)men

Many DV homicides of men are not classified as such and this number is higher than 27.4%.

In 2009 based on a million couples it can fairly be said 999,998 wives do not kill their husbands and 999,995 husbands do not kill their wives. (See Pg. 15 chart modified from the rate per 100,000.)

In 2009, 49 women and 15 men were killed by a current or former spouse (excludes one same-sex spousal victim).

Total homicides 610, Men 450. Gang related 20.3 percent.69.1 % of firearm related deaths involved handgunsWomen 160, In 2009 it represented the second lowest proportion (26%) of female homicide victims since data were first collected. The rate of female victims has generally been declining since the late 1960s.

Profile

I am Politically active and right of centre on most issues with the odd exception such as legalization of "Mary Jane".
I advocate on changes to Family Law - an incredibly dysfunctional arena where parents are pitted against one another and children are the victims.
My picture will sometimes show me as a younger man simply because I like them.

An Alienated Child

Is a troubled child

American Coalition for Fathers & Children Petition

A quote by a well known Canadian Jurist

The Honorable Justice John Gomery of Canada stated, “Hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child. It has to be taught. A parent who would teach a child to hate the other parent represents a grave and persistent danger to the mental and emotional health of that child.”

(The above quote arises from PSM vs. AJC, a decision rendered by Mr. Justice John Gomery on February 15 1991 (SCM 500-12-184613895), and confirmed by the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal on June 14 1991, the trial judge was confronted by a case involving four children caught up in a heated custody battle between their parents whereby the children became "catastrophically" alienated from their mother.)A good paper on PAS for lawyers by a lawyer, Anne-France Goldwater (Avocate), and excerpts from the above trial are located here.